Different Partition of Germany in 1945, 1955, or 1965

[M79]

While discussions about how to divide Germany were held early in the war, its final division was only solidified at Potsdam. Years later Beria proposed different arrangements for Germany after Stalin died, several years after that Adenauer proposed restoring Germany to the Line of Control in exchange for giving the Russians control of West Berlin, essentially turning East Germany into a Prussian state. Could a line like this become the German partition line? Does the lack of solid Russian claim to those areas of OTL Eastern Germany make the Allies push harder to push the Iron Curtain farther East (Berlin still likely becomes at least largely Russian...right?) And would Russia's puppet be allowed to keep some of the land given to Poland in OTL in this case in order to keep her more economically viable?

Map of approximate Line of Control from 08 May 1945:

 

[Alexniko]

I've never heard of such a proposal before and it makes no sense either. The map you showed was the demarcation line. By 4th of Juli 1945, all of these territories had allready been handed over to the SMAD. It makes absolutely no sense for the soviets to somehow hand this artificialy defined territories over to the americans or british once more (again, it was only the demarcation line).

Moreover the Western Allies and later the BRD saw West Berlin as a vital asset, used to transmit anti-communist propaganda into the SBZ and later DDR via radio and TV. In OTL the government of the DDR tried very hard to negotiate the transformation of West Berlin into a de-militarized and free city. In the end, they failed.

And no bloody way the DDR keeps more the eastern territoris after the war. First of all, the territories east of the Oder-Neisse line had allready been handed over to polish administration in 1945, 4 years before the DDR was founded.

And second, millions of poles had been left homeless after WW2, the cities were destroyed. Moreover about half the germans in the eastern territories had allready fled or been "evacuated from jewish-bolshevism" by the nazis during the war. So the poles had to find a new home, german lands were relatively empty, Germany had been the aggressor and had done unspeakable things to the polish people... so it was the obvious solution.

Of course the german people can hardly be blamed for the war, yet in this situation the allies had to choose... hurt the people that, among others, suffered most from fascist tyrany, or hurt the people that was still screaming "Heil Hitler" at this point. It was a horrible situation, but there really was only one humane solution. And I'm saying that as a german.

"Ostflüchtlinge" (eastern refugees) received state support in both the BRD and DDR.

 

[M79]

I've never heard of such a proposal before and it makes no sense either. The map you showed was the demarcation line. By 4th of Juli 1945, all of these territories had allready been handed over to the SMAD. It makes absolutely no sense for the soviets to somehow hand this artificialy defined territories over to the americans or british once more (again, it was only the demarcation line).

Moreover the Western Allies and later the BRD saw West Berlin as a vital asset, used to transmit anti-communist propaganda into the SBZ and later DDR via radio and TV. In OTL the government of the DDR tried very hard to negotiate the transformation of West Berlin into a de-militarized and free city. In the end, they failed.

And no bloody way the DDR keeps more the eastern territoris after the war. First of all, the territories east of the Oder-Neisse line had allready been handed over to polish administration in 1945, 4 years before the DDR was founded.

And second, millions of poles had been left homeless after WW2, the cities were destroyed. Moreover about half the germans in the eastern territories had allready fled or been "evacuated from jewish-bolshevism" by the nazis during the war. So the poles had to find a new home, german lands were relatively empty, Germany had been the aggressor and had done unspeakable things to the polish people... so it was the obvious solution.

Of course the german people can hardly be blamed for the war, yet in this situation the allies had to choose... hurt the people that, among others, suffered most from fascist tyrany, or hurt the people that was still screaming "Heil Hitler" at this point. It was a horrible situation, but there really was only one humane solution. And I'm saying that as a german.

"Ostflüchtlinge" (eastern refugees) received state support in both the BRD and DDR.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/international/germany/secret-documents-released-adenauer-wanted-to-swap-west-berlin-for-parts-of-gdr-a-780385-amp.html

 

[David T]

(1) What Beria--and Malenkov--proposed after Stalin's death was not a different division of Germany but its reunification. (Stalin had also proposed that in his famous Note of March 1952, but there is reason to think that Stalin simply proposed it in the expectation that it would be rejected whereas Beria and Malenkov were more serious about it. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...soviet-union-looks-like.453155/#post-17685244 for an argument that indeed the CPSU Presidium as a whole may have supported reunification in the months before the Berlin Uprising and the fall of Beria.)

(2) For Adenauer's plan in the early 1960's to swap West Berlin for part of the GDR, see https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...ap-west-berlin-for-parts-of-gdr-a-780385.html My view is that while it is just possible the US would have gone along with this (though JFK would have to brave GOP charges that having sold out the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs he was now selling out the people of West Berlin), the USSR never would, for the following reasons:

(a) Why would the Soviets agree to swap important industrial areas of the GDR for a West Berlin that will probably be largely depopulated as its residents flee to the Federal Republic?

(b) Khrushchev liked to be able to use West Berlin as leverage in his dealings with the US and the West in general--when he wanted to, he could increase pressure on West Berlin, and when he wanted détente he could reduce the pressure. Resolving the Berlin issue once and for all would decrease his bargaining leverage.

(c) The proposed territorial changes would greatly help NATO by easing the threat on the Fulda Gap.

(d) The very fact that the West was making such an offer would be seen as a sign it recognized West Berlin was indefensible--so the Soviets would feel they would eventually get it anyway.

So the whole idea looks like a non-starter to me.

 

[M79]

(1) What Beria--and Malenkov--proposed after Stalin's death was not a different division of Germany but its reunification. (Stalin had also proposed that in his famous Note of March 1952, but there is reason to think that Stalin simply proposed it in the expectation that it would be rejected whereas Beria and Malenkov were more serious about it. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...soviet-union-looks-like.453155/#post-17685244 for an argument that indeed the CPSU Presidium as a whole may have supported reunification in the months before the Berlin Uprising and the fall of Beria.)

(2) For Adenauer's plan in the early 1960's to swap West Berlin for part of the GDR, see https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...ap-west-berlin-for-parts-of-gdr-a-780385.html My view is that while it is just possible the US would have gone along with this (though JFK would have to brave GOP charges that having sold out the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs he was now selling out the people of West Berlin), the USSR never would, for the following reasons:

(a) Why would the Soviets agree to swap important industrial areas of the GDR for a West Berlin that will probably be largely depopulated as its residents flee to the Federal Republic?

(b) Khrushchev liked to be able to use West Berlin as leverage in his dealings with the US and the West in general--when he wanted to, he could increase pressure on West Berlin, and when he wanted détente he could reduce the pressure. Resolving the Berlin issue once and for all would decrease his bargaining leverage.

(c) The proposed territorial changes would greatly help NATO by easing the threat on the Fulda Gap.

(d) The very fact that the West was making such an offer would be seen as a sign it recognized West Berlin was indefensible--so the Soviets would feel they would eventually get it anyway.

So the whole idea looks like a non-starter to me.

In late 1958 Khrushchev attempted to force the hand of the West into turn the whole of Berlin into a 'free demilitarized city' or he would turn over control of access between West Germany and West Berlin to the East German government. That fell through but it got the Western Allies talking such that when Khrushchev visited the US in 1959 the subject came up during the White House visit. Their plan was to meet in Paris in 1960 with solutions for the Berlin powderkeg as one of the questions slated for discussion - unfortunately the Gary Powers incident led to the cancellation of the summit. In August of 1961 the East German government decided to close the links between West Germany and West Berlin leading to further problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Crisis_of_1961), this was around the time Adenauer proposed the swap as previously noted. I think Khrushchev was potentially amenable, though East Germany probably wasn't at that point and Russia might want something in addition to sweeten the pot.

 

[David T]

In late 1958 Khrushchev attempted to force the hand of the West into turn the whole of Berlin into a 'free demilitarized city' or he would turn over control of access between West Germany and West Berlin to the East German government.

This is not accurate. Khrushchev did not demand turning "the whole of Berlin into a 'free demilitarized city'"--he insisted that West Berlin be turned into a free demilitarized city:

"At the same time the Soviet Government is prepared to enter into negotiations with the governments of the United States of America and with those of the other states concerned on granting West Berlin the status of a demilitarized free city. In case this proposal is not acceptable to the government of the USA then there will no longer remain any topic for negotiations between the former occupying powers on the Berlin question." http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?docpage_id=3585 East Berlin was to remain an integral part of the GDR; indeed, the GDR never referred to it as East Berlin but as Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR (Berlin, capital of the GDR).

Khrushchev alternately backed away from and revived the ultimatum. He finally "solved" the problem of flight to the West by building the Berlin Wall. But there is no reason to think he would have bene open to Adenauer's proposal, which as I indicated at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ny-in-1945-1955-or-1965.484593/#post-20274367 would on the whole be favorable to the West.

As for, what if Khrushchev had followed through on his ultimatum, I wrote here in 2017:

So suppose Khrushchev does follow through with his threat to sign a separate peace treaty with the GDR? Assuming that the East German officials then allow the Western Allies the same access to West Berlin that the USSR did, it's hard for me to see the US starting a third world war over the identity of the officials who stamp the transit documents. (Even John Foster Dulles briefly flirted with the "agency theory"--that the US would just regard the East German officials at the checkpoints as agents of the USSR. In other words, basically, pretend that nothing had changed... https://books.google.com/books?id=XEPKTdIFm-IC&pg=PA122)